Convergence and Divergence in Multilateral Initiatives of Leading Powers

The emergence of multilateral initiative states and integration associations of the world, including the “Belt and road” of China, the “Greater Eurasian Partnership” of the Russian Federation, the “Free and Open Indo-Pacific Region” of the USA and Japan, the “Global Gateway” of the EU is an element of the rivalry between the mentioned powers. Within the system of international relations, this trend creates a complex interdependence among States with a different position in the global socio-political and economic hierarchy. Comparing multilateral initiatives represents a relatively new and promising research topic. The authors examine the convergence or divergence of separate multilateral initiatives by an assessment of the trends in income inequality among participating States. The income inequality is obtained through a calculation of cross-border Gini index for GDP per capita.

The research conclusions are following. First, the presence of the authors revealed multilateral initiatives in cooperation with developing groups in all major states - development centers and details of such projects by the PRC, USA, Russian Federation, Japan and EU. Second, the elements of goal-setting and in the composition of the participants lead to a conclusion that multilateral initiatives of great powers at the same time constitutes an example of both power projection and complex interdependence typical to the periods of globalization trend in the evolution of international relations.

Furthermore, the study results showed that the rising powers Russia and China, alongside Japan – a traditional power – have less inequality and better convergence rates within their multilateral initiatives. The US initiative has the highest level of inequality, but there is a convergence. The EU initiative has both a high inequality and the minimal dynamic convergence.

Thus, the approach used by the authors to assess the inequality and convergence of multilateral initiatives based on the calculation of the cross-border Gini index demonstrates comparative inequality with sufficient completeness and characterizes the processes of convergence and divergence of multilateral initiative.

1. Degterev, D.A. (2019). Multipolar World Order: Old Myths and New Realities, Vestnik RUDN. International Relations, 19 (3), 404-419. DOI: 10.22363/2313-0660-2019-19-3-404-419

2. Degterev, D.A., Ramich, M.S., & Cvyk, A.V. (2021). USA – China: “power transit” and contours of “conflict bipolarity”, Vestnik RUDN. International Relations, 21 (2), 210-231. DOI: 10.22363/2313-0660-2021-21-2-210-231

3. Keohane, R., & Nye, J. (1973). Power and Interdependence. Survival, 15 (4), 158-165. DOI: 10.1080/00396337308441409

4. Keohane, R., & Nye, J. (2012). Power and Interdependence. 4th edition. Boston, Longman.

5. Kim, Y., & Indeo, F. (2013). The New Great Game in Central Asia Post 2014: The US “New Silk Road” Strategy and Sino-Russian Rivalry. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 46 (2), 275-286. DOI: 10.1016/j.postcomstud.2013.03.005

6. Kireeva, A.A. (2020). The Indo-Pacific in the Strategies of the U.S. and Japan. Russia in Global Affairs, 3(71), 98-127. DOI: 10.31278/1810-6374-2020-18-3-98-127

7. Li, S., & Wang, C. (2014). Chinese political science on the meaning and perspective of the Eurasian Union. International Processes, 12 (38), 70-82.

8. Li, X. (2019). The “Absence” of Asian Regional Economic Integration and the Development Orientation of the Belt and Road. Social Sciences in China, 40 (1), 132-147. DOI: 10.1080/02529203.2019.1556484

9. Libman, A.M. (2006). The role of economic integration and disintegration in the post-Soviet space: a quantitative analysis. Studies on Russian Economic Development, 17, 498-507.

10. Lombaerde, P. De, Moldashev, K., Qoraboyev, I., & Taghon, S. (2022). Strategic responses of regional economic organizations to the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative: the cases of ASEAN, EAEU, and EU. Asia Pacific Business Review, Latest Articles, 1-21. DOI: 10.1080/13602381.2022.2093526

11. Min, Y. (2015). China and Competing Cooperation in Asia-Pacific: TPP, RCEP, and the New Silk Road. Asian Security, 11 (3), 206-224. DOI: 10.1080/14799855.2015.1109509

12. Reich, S., & Lebow, R.N. (2014). Good-Bye, Hegemony! Power and Influence in the Global System. Princeton: Princeton University Press

13. Tekdal, V. (2017). China’s Belt and Road Initiative: at the crossroads of challenges and ambitions. The Pacific Review, 31(1), 1-18. DOI: 10.1080/09512748.2017.1391864

14. Ageev, A.I., Loginov, E.L. & Bortalevich S. I. (2016). Bol’shoye yevraziyskoye partnerstvo: proyekt, vstrechnyy Transtikhookeanskomu partnerstvu [The Great Eurasian Partnership: a project counter to the Trans-Pacific]. Bol’shoye yevraziyskoye partnerstvo: proyekt, vstrechnyy Transtikhookeanskomu partnerstvu, 18 (6 (140)), 20-31. (In Russian).

15. Belchenko, M. A. (2014). Ot Tamozhennogo soyuza k Yedinomu ekonomicheskomu prostranstvu [From the Customs Union to the Common Economic Space]. Uchenyye zapiski Sankt-Peterburgskogo imeni V.B. Bobkova filiala Rossiyskoy tamozhennoy akademii, 2 (50), 78-87. (In Russian)

16. Glazyev, S. Yu. (2019). Kontseptual’nyye predlozheniya po prakticheskoy realizatsii idei Bol’shogo Evraziyskogo partnerstva [Conceptual proposals for the practical implementation of the idea of the Greater Eurasian Partnership]. Ekonomicheskiye strategii, 21, 1 (159), 6-17. (In Russian)

17. Glazyev, S. Yu. (2019). Bol’shoye yevraziyskoye partnerstvo: sozidaya novyy mir [The Great Eurasian Partnership: creating a new world]. Evraziyskaya integratsiya: ekonomika, pravo, politika, 1(27), 18-20. (In Russian).

18. Gorbunova, M.L., & Komarov, I.D. (2016). Gibridnyye mekhanizmy mnogostoronnego ekonomicheskogo sotrudnichestva – novoye yavleniye vo vneshney politike KNR [Hybrid mechanisms of multilateral economic cooperation – a new phenomenon in China’s foreign policy]. International Organizations Research Journal: Education, Science, New Economy, 11 (3), 82-98. DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2016-03-82 (In Russian).

19. Istomin, I. A. (2023). Vashington–Seul–Tokio v doktrine Baydena [Washington–Seoul–Tokyo in the Biden doctrine]. Russia in Global Politics, 21 (3), 208-212. DOI: 10.31278/1810-6439-2023-21-3-208-212

20. Kadochnikov, P.A., & Stapran, N.V. (2016). Transtikhookeanskoye partnerstvo: osnovnyye obyazatel’stva uchastnikov i posledstviya dlya mezhdunarodnoy torgovli [Trans-Pacific Area: The Basic Obligations of the Participants and the Consequences for International Trade]. Rossijskij vneshnejekonomicheskij vestnik, 2, 21–31. (In Russian).

21. Luzyanin, S.G., & Sazonov, S.L. (2015). Ekonomicheskiy poyas Sholkovogo puti: model’ 2015 g [The Economic belt of the Silk Road: A model of 2015 Nauchno-analiticheskiy zhurnal Obozrevatel’ – Observer, 5 (304), 3-46. (In Russian)